wordstat.user_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing. It implies a read/access-check operation but says nothing about auth requirements, what success or failure means, rate limits, or what data (if any) comes back. For a user_info/access-check tool this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, brevity here comes at the cost of substance, and the 'via getRegionsTree' clause adds confusion rather than information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented nested parameter, and an ambiguous name/purpose relationship, the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It should clarify whether this returns user identity data or merely checks API access.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is an undescribed nested 'params' object. The description adds no meaning about what params accepts or requires, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. Baseline credit for zero-param tools does not apply here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a purpose ('Search API access check') for a tool named user_info, which creates tension between the name and the stated function. It does identify the domain (Wordstat) and an action, but 'via getRegionsTree' muddies the purpose by pointing at a mechanism that duplicates the sibling tool wordstat.get_regions_tree. An agent can only partially tell what this tool uniquely does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus wordstat.get_regions_tree, wordstat.user_info's own siblings, or other wordstat tools. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are stated. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.